“I became aware of this desire of Rome to impose on us their ideas and their way of seeing things. Cardinal Ratzinger always said to me, “But, Monsignor, there is only one Church, you must not make a parallel Church.”

 

What is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear! When he explicitly told us: “Obviously, if we grant you this protocol, some privileges, you will also have to accept what we do; and therefore, in the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, a New Mass will also have to be said every Sunday.”…

 

You see clearly that he wanted to bring us back to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible because it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to put an end to Tradition. They grant nothing out of esteem for the traditional liturgy, but simply to deceive those whom they give it to, and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge in the Traditional block to destroy it.

 

These are their politics, their conscious tactics! They do not make mistakes and you know the pressures they exert …”

(Conference at Econe, September 9, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” 

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Two Years after the Consecrations”, Address Given to Priests in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.

(September 22, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Thanks to a French Canadian gentleman of the Resistance, here is a translated into English extract of a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on April 11, 1990 in Econe, Switzerland.  This extract is from the second part of the conference, which deals with the Novus Ordo Missae.

 

In addition, two audio extracts are provided below, courtesy of the same French Canadian gentlemen, of the same conference (in French) given by Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

1. The Novus Ordo Missae

 

2. The Liturgical Reform

 

It is clear from the Archbishop’s words that he would not give permission for one to positively assist at the Novus Ordo Missae for any reason whatsoever, unlike what Bishop Richard Williamson did, as demonstrated in this post.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

In the post “Question:  May I Ever Assist at the Novus Ordo Missae?  Answer:  No!”, I wrote that there can never be any justification whatsoever for assisting at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Missae (i.e., New Mass) because the Novus Ordo Missae is instrinsically evil (i.e., in and of itself).  No good end end or circumstance, therefore, can justify assisting at it.  To put it simply, the Novus Ordo Missae is the product of the Conciliar Church, the man-centred religion founded upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.  It is not the product of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  As such, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be pleasing to God.  That the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that he founded.  His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamon admitted this in his December 1, 1996 Letter of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (emphasis mine):

 

“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?

 

“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”

 

In Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” (Issue #445 dated January 23, 2016), he begins with the following statement (emphasis mine):

 

“The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend.”

 

Of course, a priest is not obliged, for example, to go stand in front of a Novus Ordo church and forbid people from attending the New Mass.  However, this is not the case Bishop Williamson was faced with during a conference he gave on June 28, 2015 in Mahopac, New York to which conference he alludes in the statement above.  Rather, in this conference at the 1 hour, 1 minute, and 40 seconds mark, a lady tells her story that she attends the Latin Mass on Sunday and the Novus Ordo Missae during the week.  She justifies her attendance by citing two objective circumstances:

 

1) The priest celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass in a reverent way.

2) She believes that the priest believes he is changing the bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  (Note:  External action is how the priest’s intention to do what the Church does is manifested.)

 

The lady was seeking the counsel of Bishop Williamson on whether it would be morally acceptable for her to continue attending the Novus Ordo Mass under these good objective circumstances.  Since Bishop Williamson knows what Archbishop Lefebvre taught regarding this matter (i.e., that the New Mass is intrinsically evil) and since he is a spiritual son of the Archbishop, here was a good opportunity for him to firmly, but gently, tell the lady that she ought not to attend the Novus Ordo Mass anymore.  However, this is not what we heard from his lips.  Rather, at the 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 5 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson realizes that what he is about to say is controversial and invites the audience to chop off his head nonetheless.  He then proceeds to acknowledge those two circumstances the lady mentioned and then adds a third objective circumstance, that is, that it is important that she doesn’t scandalize anybody by her attendance.  Shortly thereafter, he brings up attendance at neo-SSPX Masses and that one needs to watch for potentially negative changes in neo-SSPX Masses.  If one starts to see such changes, then one must stay away.  He then says that one must be in the same way on guard for potentially negative changes in the Novus Ordo Mass.  Then at the 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 0 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson again states that one needs to watch and make decisions based on one’s own circumstances and that therefore there are cases where even the Novus Ordo mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.  Then he recognizes that this statement is almost heresy within Tradition, but nonetheless that is what he thinks.

 

It is clear that Bishop Williamson’s answer to the lady is not consistent with Archbishop Lefebvre’s position that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil because Bishop Williamson admits that there are good objective circumstances that morally permit one to assist at it.  This is unacceptable for a bishop consecrated as such by the Archbishop’s own hands!

 

Unfortunately, however, the story does not end here.  In addition to acknowledging objective circumstances that would morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, Bishop Williamson seems to go even further in the same conference in that one’s subjective view or circumstances also morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae.  For example, at the 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 40 seconds mark, he states, “The golden rule is this…..the absolute rule of rules seems to me to be this:  do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”  Then at the 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 15 seconds mark, he states, “The essential principle is do whatever you need to keep the Faith.”  These statements are disturbing because they seem to be based on the perceived truth of the subject rather than on objective truth, which Bishop Williamson has always heralded.  Within the context of the conference, this means that if I believe that I need to go to a Resistance Mass to nourish my faith, so be it;  if I believe I need to go to a neo-SSPX Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to a Novus Ordo Mass to nourish my faith, so be it.  Why then have we, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, been fighting for the last 50 years against the Conciliar Church, its rites, and those that defend them if now we can do “whatever we need to nourish our faith”?  Has objective truth given way to subjective perception?  It was the goal of the Archbishop and the SSPX he founded (and now that part of the Resistance that faithfully maintains the Archbishop’s position) to lead people out of their errors and not pander to them.  If Bishop Williamson wants to continue to claim that he is indeed a faithful son of the Archbishop, he must do the same by clearly acknowledging that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil.  This means that his counsel must be that no good end or circumstance (objective or subjective) can ever justify assisting at it.  Period.

 

One may naturally inquire, “Why is Bishop Williamson opening up an old wound?  The question of the moral liceity of assisting at the Novus Ordo Missae has already been settled, at least among the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre.  What then are Bishop Williamon’s reasons for bringing this matter onto the front page Traditional Catholic news, so to speak, in the last several months?”  Well, according to His Excellency’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” referenced above, there are at least two reasons:

 

“Firstly, to ward off what is coming to be called ‘ecclesiavacantism’, namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever.”¹ 

 

It is not a matter of the Newchurch (i.e., Conciliar Church) having nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever. The Anglican Church has Catholic elements in it as well.  However, the Archbishop and his followers hold that these Catholic elements do not make the Conciliar Church any more Catholic than the Catholic elements in the Anglican Church make it any more Catholic.  Rather, the Conciliar Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the schismatic Second Vatican Council just as the Anglican Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Anglican Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the English schism.  The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the same man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter, and is hence the head of the Catholic Church, is also the head of the Conciliar Church, whereas this is not the case with the Anglican Church.  Nevertheless, to reject the analogy outright is to deny the distinction that the Archbishop made between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, which is essential to understand if one is to come out of the Conciliar Church without adopting Sedevacantism or if one is to avoid going into the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.  I do not believe that denying the distinction is the intention of Bishop Williamson, but in effect the distinction between the two Churches becomes somewhat blurred in his first reason.

 

“Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement.”  

 

I agree with His Excellency that there are those considering themselves to be part of the Traditionalist movement who in their pride think themselves holier than those outside the movement.  However, this is not a problem with those who have a proper understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position and have seen or heard about the love he had for those within the Conciliar Church.  His “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” is one beautiful manifestation of his love for them.

 

Let us pray and hope that His Excellency Bishop Williamson publicly changes his position regarding assistance at the Novus Ordo Missae to be fully in line with the one of his spiritual father.

 

Footnote

1. This point of Bishop Williamson reminds me of Paragraph 8 of “Lumen Gentium” where it states that “these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling (Protestant sects, as such) towards catholic unity”.  This statement tries to give the impression that Protestant sects, as such, take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church of Christ.  However, the Protestant sects, as such, do not take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church.  In a similar manner, the Conciliar Church, as such, takes no legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, itself is a sect.  I do not imply here that Bishop Williamson adheres to this false idea of the Second Vatican Council and/or deliberately applies it to the Conciliar Church.  I am only trying to make the point that one could, as I do, see an interlacing of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church in His Excellency’s first reason, thereby blurring the distinction between the two.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“We must absolutely convince the faithful that this is a maneuver.  That putting themselves in the hands of the Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome is a danger.  It is the greatest danger that menaces them.  For twenty years we have fought the conciliar errors, not to put ourselves into the hands of those who profess them.
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fideliter, July 1989, no. 70, p.13)

 

Source:  TradCatKnight

 

Dear priests of the neo-SSPX and faithful that attend their Masses, the neo-SSPX leadership is taking you right into the arms of Modernist Rome, precisely where the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned NOT to go.  So, please, wake up and resist the new direction!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

Our Lady of Good Success prophesied to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in Quito in the 17th century that a Holy Prelate would come to help restore the Catholic Church in our time.  Many believe that this prophecy was referring to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  The Archbishop himself stated the following during the sermon he gave at the June 30, 1988 episcopal consecration ceremony:

 

“It was not only the good Pope Leo XIII who said these things, but Our Lady prophesied them as well. Just recently, the priest who takes care of the priory of Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of ‘Buon Suceso,’ – of ‘Good Fortune,’ to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the twentieth century, saying explicitly that during the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.

 

“I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety – saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.”

(http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm)

 

Hence, the Archbishop believed that the prophecy may have been about him.  However, I propose that the Holy Prelate prophesied by Our Lady of Good Success was not Archbishop Lefebvre; rather, Our Lady was referring to a prelate yet to come.  As the basis of my argument, I shall use the biography written by a Fr. Manuel Sousa Pereira in 1790.  This excellent biography has been approved by the Church as a source of evidence in the process of canonization of Mother Mariana.  It has been translated from the original Spanish into English by Marian T. Horvat and is available from Tradition in Action in two volumes (Volume I and Volume II).

 

The Royal Convent of the Immaculate Conception was founded on January 13, 1577 in Quito.  The spiritual and temporal government of the religious (Conceptionists) was entrusted to the hands of the Rev. Father Antonio Jurado, O.F.M. (Volume I, p. 32).  Some time between 1593 and 1599, the Friars Minor prudently decided to step away from the direction of the Convent due to some troubles with certain sisters.  They did not, however, renounce their complete jurisdiction (Volume I, p. 97).  It was not until 1601 that the complete separation of the Friar Minors from the convent took place (Volume I, p. 99, footnote 30).  Ever since that time, the convent has been under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop.

 

An apparition of Our Lady of Good Success took place on January 16, 1599.  Part of the message that Our Lady gave to Mother Mariana this day was the following:

 

“The separation of the Friars Minor has taken place by divine permission.  Woe to those who openly worked to obscure the light of my Convent!  But after some centuries, they will return to govern this beloved flock, which will always lament their absence and feel their loss.

 

“….But a golden area will come to this my Convent.  Then a Prelado (prelate), my most beloved son, blessed and prized before God, will understand by divine light the necessity for the daughters of my Immaculate Conception to subject themselves in exact obedience to the Friars Minor for their sanctification and perfection.  This Prelate will ask my Vicar of my most Holy Son here on Earth to restore the jurisdiction over this Convent to the Friars Minor” (Volume I, pp. 143-144).

 

In this message, we read that the Holy Prelate will restore the jurisdiction over the convent back to the Friars Minor.  As mentioned above, this has not happened yet.  And Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991.  Our Lady, therefore, was not referring to Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

In another apparition of Our Lady of Good Success that took place on February 2, 1634, part of the message She gave to Mother Mariana this day mentions again the Holy Prelate:

 

“In this epoch (our time), the Secular Clergy will be far removed from its ideal, because the priests will be careless in their sacred duties.  Losing the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain.

 

“How this Church will suffer on that occasion the dark night of the lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, discernment, and prudence.  Many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.

 

“Pray insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secrecy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and by the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and quickly bring to an end those ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests” (Volume II, pp. 212-213).

 

Now Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed restore the spirit of many priests after the calamitous Second Vatican Council.  However, he did not do so on a grand scale as virtually every priest worldwide adopted the reforms of the Council, especially the Novus Ordo Missae, and remain attached to them to this very day.  Furthermore, the Archbishop’s work did not “bring to an end those ominous times”; rather, the Church as a whole has gotten worse since the Council and is currently in the worst state under Pope Francis than it has ever been.  History shows that the Archbishop’s work was more related to the preservation of the Church than to its restoration.  The Holy Prelate’s work, on the other hand, will be that of a full restoration.

 

In the same February 2, 1634 message, Our Lady continues:

 

“The lukewarmness of all the souls consecrated to God in the priestly and religious state will delay the coming of this Prelate and Father.  This, then, will be the cause of the cursed Devil taking possession of this land (Ecuador), where he will achieve his victories by means of a foreign and faithless people, so numerous that, like a black cloud, it will obscure the limpid heavens of the then-Republic consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of my Divine Son.

 

“With these people, all the vices will enter, which will attract in their turn every type of chastisement, such as plagues, famines, internal fighting and external disputes with other nations, and apostasy, the cause of the perdition of so many souls so dear to Jesus Christ and to me.

 

“In order to dissipate this black cloud that prevents the Church from enjoying the clear day of liberty, there were will a formidable and frightful war, which see the bloodshed of countrymen and foreigners, of secular and regular priests and also of religious.  That night will be most horrible, for, humanly speaking, evil will seem triumphant.

 

“This, then, will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss.  Thus the Church and Country will finally be free from his cruel tyranny” (Volume II, pp. 213-214). 

 

Note that this time of trouble occurs after the time of Garcia Moreno, who consecrated Ecuador to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as Our Lady says that “it (the time of the Devil taking possession of Ecuador due the lukewarmness of consecrated souls) will obscure the limpid heavens of the then-Republic consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of my Divine Son“.  Therefore, Our Lady is referring to a period after the period of relative prosperity in Ecuador that resulted from the consecration.  However, Our Lady added that She will finally free the Church and Country from the Devil’s cruel tyranny.  This has yet to happen, but when it does, Our Lady will have the co-operation of the Holy Prelate.

 

With the impending formal apostasy of Rome, the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, the betrayal of the SSPX leadership, and the two Resistance bishops adopting the impotent “loose association” model, is there any doubt that we need the help of the Holy Prelate now more than ever?  No!  Let us then implore Our Lady of Good Success to send him to us soon.

 

Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The video shown below is of a conference given by His Excellency Bishop Jean-Michel Faure on December 1, 2015 in Post Falls, Idaho. At about the 61 minute mark, a layman asks His Excellency whether he will do what His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson has refused to do, that is, take the reins and lead the Resistance.  The layman was basically asking Bishop Faure whether he will form an organization that will continue the work of the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Bishop Faure said he will not do so for now.  This is the first time that I have heard Bishop Faure explicitly state that he will not organize another religious society of priests for the time being.  I must say that I was rather disappointed.  It is not that I and others want another brand new organization; rather, since the neo-SSPX has deviated from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre, we want the continuation of the work of the Archbishop by the formation of a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX.  This would be similar to what the Dominicans of Avrille have done, that is, they have continued the rule and spirit of the St. Dominic while the Dominicans in the Novus Ordo wallow in the Vatican II revolution.  The idea of a loose association of priests is not consonant with the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, it is bound to fail; it is failing.  The mess that the Resistance finds itself in, I am convinced, is greatly due to the lack of a hierarchical structure.  Yet those that have the power to do something about it, namely the two bishops, have decided to maintain a loose structure, at least for now.  Can you imagine what would happen if the Dominicans of Avrille decided to organize loosely amongst themselves?  It would become chaotic!  No; we need an organization with an authority holding it together.

 

There are two main reasons why Bishop Faure said that a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX would be difficult to establish at this point in time:

 

  1. It is dangerous to have a centralized organization (just look at what happened to the SSPX under Bishop Fellay);
  2. There are strong-willed Resistance priests who would not want to be part of an organization.

Regarding the first point, that the leadership of an organization may try to take that organization in a different direction from the one for which it was constituted, we have countless examples from history.  Just look at what happened to the Catholic Church during and after the Second Vatican Council; the Vicars of Christ themselves have betrayed His one and only Church!  Should we be surprised then that it has and will happen over and over again with lesser societies?  With Bishop Faure’s line of reasoning, why then does he support the hierarchical structure of the Dominicans of Avrille?  After all, they could be subverted from within as well.  Sorry, but the line of thought of this first point just doesn’t make much sense.

 

Regarding the second point, I know two strong-willed Resistance priests that actually want to be part of an organization.  They claim that they continue to be members of the SSPX, but since the neo-SSPX has veered off the Archbishop’s path, they have called upon the Resistance bishops to continue the work of the Archbishop by restoring the SSPX as it was under the Archbishop.  I say, “Give them a chance to prove themselves.”  If they end up refusing to submit in obedience, there is always the door.  Nevertheless, if there are strong-willed priests that don’t want to be part of an organization, so what?  They will not and do not need to join.  They can continue being independent.  Should the Resistance bishops then forsake the priests who do want to be part of an organization because of some who do not?  I hope not.  As a matter of fact, I will bet dollars to donuts that the lack of an organization prevents priests still in the neo-SSPX from leaving because they figure that they would have nowhere else to go.  If the Resistance bishops, instead, start an organization, they will have priests both inside and outside of the neo-SSPX flocking to join them.

 

We definitely thank Bishop Faure for starting a seminary with the Dominicans of Avrille to form priests, but this is only a part of the solution.  We need a hierarchical organization for existing priests.  Let us pray, then, that the Resistance bishops change their mind on this matter.  If not, let us petition them to consecrate a priest to the episcopacy who does want to continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre via a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX.  If it is only a matter of strategy (as one Resistance bishop has said, “There is more than one way to skin a cat”), then they should not be opposed to doing so.  The difference in good fruits between a structure and loose network will show itself, I am certain, in the structure bearing more.  Unfortunately, if the Resistance bishops continue to insist on not starting a structure or refuse to consecrate a priest to the episcopacy who wants to start one, can they then claim to be continuing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre (which was only the work of the Catholic Church) in its entirety?  I don’t believe so.  And if they acknowledge that they are not continuing the work of the Archbishop in its entirety, let us pray to Our Lord and Our Lady to send us a bishop who will do so.

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

For those who support internal clergy and lay resistance within the SSPX, I firmly believe your resistance is futile.  The time has long passed for internal resistance.  Bishop Fellay and the SSPX leaders have firmly shown that they will not change from their current path of desiring to place themselves under Modernist Rome.  We have three years and a tsunami of evidence to prove this.

 

In this category of internal resistance, I include those priests and laity who publicly display their resistance against the new direction.  Amongst the priests, I believe internal public resistance is few and far in between.  These priests will either be kicked out or moved to a remote location.  Nevertheless, they will not achieve their goal of turning the tide of their leadership away from the direction towards Modernist Rome.  The reality is they belong, as in any organization, to a religious union in which the purpose and goals are defined by the leadership.  In July 2012, all the leaders of the SSPX gathered and published a declaration of their new position.  It is now three years later and there have been no signs of movement away from that position.  Therefore, I believe it is time for the SSPX priests and laity who do not support the new direction to make their move out of the SSPX.  Those who think they can continue to internally resist with hope of success are fooling themselves.  If anything, they place themselves in danger of adopting the new direction.  Look how many have done exactly this thus far.

 

Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre taught that it is the superiors that make the subjects.  This was true then and it is true now.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

The supreme moral principle is “one ought to do good and avoid evil”.  A secondary principle that follows from this supreme moral principle is that “it is morally illicit to do evil so that good may come about”.  In other words, “a good end does not justify using evil means”.  To understand what constitutes a good versus evil act, we need to look at the three determinants of a moral act – object, end, and circumstances.  The object of the act is that to which the act is willfully directed.  The object constitutes the substance of the act, that is, the object gives the act its species.  In stealing $5 from a stranger to buy food to satisfy one’s hunger, for example, “stealing” is the object.  The end is the purpose for which the act is committed.  In this example, “to satisfy one’s hunger” is the end.  Circumstances are factors surrounding the object of the act.  In this example, “$5 from a stranger” are the circumstances.  All three determinants must be good in order for the moral act to be good.  On the other hand, if even one determinant is evil, then the moral act as a whole is evil.  Since the object of a moral act constitutes the substance of the act, it holds the primary place in assessing the goodness or evilness of the act.  This is so much the case that no matter how good the end or the circumstances, an evil object renders a moral act “intrinsically” evil.  Further note that the object is the “means” used to achieve the “end”.  And as mentioned above, one cannot use evil means to justify a good end.

 

The three determinants of a moral act do not take into account the knowledge or awareness on the part of the subject of the goodness or badness of the act.  The three determinants deal with the goodness or badness of the act itself and not the guilt of the subject before God.  In regards to the guilt of the subject before God, the three determinants only constitute the “matter” for sin.  It is the subject’s knowledge and awareness of the evilness of the object, end, and/or circumstances that constitute the “form” for sin.  Therefore, an act that is “materially” sinful is not necessarily “formally” sinful.  In other words, one may perform an act that is evil in its object, end, and circumstances and yet not be guilty of sin before God because he was inculpably ignorant of the evil.  This is very important to understand when correcting those who are performing evil acts; judge the act, but leave the judgement of the soul to God.

 

So what does this have to do with the question of whether one may assist at the Novus Ordo Missae?  Well, if one accepts that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil, then there can be no end or circumstance, however good, that can morally justify oneself assisting, or giving another the counsel that it is morally licit to assist, at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Rite.  I want to make clear, however, that it is not the intention of this article to show that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil.  There are many good books, such as “The Ottaviani Intervention” and “The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”, that show this is the case.  Rather, it is the intention of this article to show:

 

1) that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did teach that the Novus Ordo Missae, as officially promulgated (read “published” for those who believe it was not truly promulgated) by Pope Paul VI, is “intrinsically” evil,

 

2) what the attitude of a priest who accepts that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil should be when giving counsel to a person who asks him about the moral liceity of assisting at it.

 

Another thing that must be made clear from the outset is that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not teach that the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil because it is necessarily invalid or because it contains explicit heresy.  Rather, the Novus Ordo Missae is “intrinsically” evil because of its omissions in unequivocally expressing the Catholic Church’s teaching in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The very definition of evil is “the privation of a due good”.

 

Before we begin with quoting Archbishop Lefebvre and the official position of his Society of St. Pius X in regards to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, let us first read several quotes of others that point to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, regardless of whether those quoted understood the gravity of what they were saying.

 

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
(Archbishop Bugnini, quoted in “Osservatore Romano”, March 19, 1965)

 

“They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

 

“With the new Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”
(Max Thurian, Protestant Minister of Taize, quoted in “La Croix”, May 30, 1969)

 

“….. the Novus Ordo Missae ….. represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitely fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.”
(Letter of Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci to Pope Paul VI included in “The Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” – September 25, 1969)

 

“Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (Novus Ordo Missae).”
(Dr. Ronald Jasper, Anglican Observer on the Consilium, quoted in the London “Catholic Herald”, December 22, 1972)

 

“The liturgical reform is a major conquest of the Catholic Church and has its ecumenical dimensions since the other churches and Christian denominations see in it not only something to be admired, but equally a sign of further progress to come.”
(Archbishop Bugnini, quoted in “Notitiae”, No. 92, April 1974, p. 126)

 

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
(Father Joseph Gelineau, “Demain la Liturgie”, Paris, 1976, p. 9-10)

 

“There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist service.”
(Jean Guitton, close friend of Pope Paul VI, quoted in “Apropos” (17), December 19, 1993, p. 8ff)

 

Let us now read quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre and the official position of his Society of St. Pius X.

 

“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way.  There is something in it that is truly bad.  It was based on a model of the Mass according to Cranmer and Taize (1959).  As I said in Rome to those who interviewed me:  ‘It is a poisoned Mass!'”
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1981, quoted in “The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre”, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 2004, Angelus Press, p. 465)

 

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass (i.e., one that does not follow the liturgical rules – my note) which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

 

“The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, 1986, Angelus Press, p. 29)

 

“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?

 

“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Richard Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)

 

“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”
(Fr. Francois Laisney, from an article entitled “Is the Novus Ordo Missae Evil?”, “The Angelus”, March 1997 Issue)

 

“The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have……

 

“If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).”
(“Most Frequenty Asked Questions of the Society of St. Pius X”, Fathers of the Holy Cross Seminary, 1997, Question #5 regarding the Novus Ordo Missae)

 

“The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it. Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the ‘lex credendi’ of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is ‘orthodox’ in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer ‘right praise’ to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen. And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the faithful ‘the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,’ where the Church ‘communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei, of the truth of Christ.’ In light of these serious deficiencies, ‘the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.’”
(“The Problem of the Liturgical Reform”, The Society of St. Pius X, 2001, Angelus Press, para. 122)

 

“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”
(Bishop Bernard Fellay, conference given in Kansas City, Missouri on March 5, 2002)

 

“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.”
(Fr. Peter Scott, from the “Questions & Answers” section, “The Angelus”, September 2002 Issue)

 

“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
(Taken from article entitled “Is the New Mass Legit” published on www.sspx.org on May 25, 2011, author unknown)

 

I think these quotes are more than sufficient to demonstrate the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X in regards to the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae.

 

Now given that a priest, Fr. Smith, accepts this position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society of St. Pius X, imagine the following scenario:

 

Betty tells Fr. Smith that the priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae at the parish she assists at on Sundays in order to fulfill her Sunday obligation rejects the heresies of Vatican II and even preaches against them, without directly offending the local bishop, in his sermons. He celebrates the Mass in Latin with the outmost respect, piety, and devotion, and according to the official rubrics. Furthermore, he celebrates the Mass on an altar with the tabernacle in the middle and he refuses to give Communion in the hand. Because of these good circumstances, Betty believes that her faith is not in danger and that her attendance is not a scandal to anybody else. She does wish that she could assist at a Traditional Mass, but the closest one is a 3 hrs. drive. She is willing to drive to the Traditional Mass at least once every three months, but between Traditional Masses she believes that she will lose her faith if she goes without Mass and Holy Communion every week.

 

Response #1 of Fr. Smith:

 

Dear Betty, you seem to be a very sincere person and of good will. I see that you love God and want to worship Him at His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You surely have the right intention. The circumstances under which you assist at Mass also seem decent. I can understand your dilemma given the current worldwide crisis in the lack of Traditional Masses. Therefore, so long as your good intentions and the decent circumstances continue to exist, and so long as you continue to sincerely believe that you cannot go without Mass, do whatever you need to keep the Faith. If that means you need to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, then go ahead. God bless you.”

 

Response #2 of Fr. Smith:

 

Dear Betty, you seem to be a very sincere person and of good will. I see that you love God and want to worship Him at His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You surely have the right intention. The circumstances under which you assist at Mass also seem decent. I can understand your dilemma given the current worldwide crisis in the lack of Traditional Masses. However, the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil. Here are the reasons…….Therefore, I cannot in good conscience tell you that it is morally licit for you to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae. I suggest that you try to make it to the Traditional Mass once a month instead of every three months. For the other Sundays, in order to sanctify the day, I suggest praying 15 decades of the Holy Rosary, read the Ordinary and Proper of the Traditional Mass missal for that day, do some spiritual reading, and spend some time in mental prayer. God bless you.”

 

Response #1 of Fr. Smith is not consistent with his belief regarding the “intrinsic” evilness of the Novus Ordo Missae, whereas Response #2 is consistent with his belief. In Response #1, Fr. Smith is pandering to the subjective state of mind of Betty. He is giving her a response based on her perception and not what he believes to be objectively true.  This is subjectivism.  Without informing her of the truth, he is not helping her to properly form her mind. Rather, he keeps her in the state of error. Hence, it is evil counsel. In Response #2, however, Fr. Smith sympathizes with her situation, but firmly gives her the truth so that she can properly form her mind and consequently make the morally good decision. Hence, his counsel here is good.  Now Betty, armed with the truth, may or may not heed Fr. Smith’s counsel.  Nevertheless, the decision she makes will be between her conscience and God. Fr. Smith, on his part, has done his duty.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |